Two studies presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)/International Liver Congress meeting in Barcelona, Spain, were the first to explore certain aspects of treatment with boceprevir. One study was the first to show the efficacy of boceprevir in the treatment of null responders with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Another study addressed the absence of head-to-head clinical trials between boceprevir (Victrelis, Merck & Co.) and telaprevir (Incivek, Vertex Pharmaceuticals).

Boceprevir in Null Responders

In the first study, investigators found that boceprevir used in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin led to high rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV who failed prior treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin alone. The study also showed that the combination of boceprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin was effective in prior partial responders and relapsers, which has been previously reported.

The results were based on an interim analysis of PROVIDE, an ongoing, open-label study of patients who participated in the peginterferon and ribavirin control arms of the Phase II and III studies of boceprevir and who failed to achieve SVR. After treatment with the triple-drug regimen, SVR was achieved in 40% (19 of 47) of prior null responders, defined as a greater than 2-log10 decline in HCV RNA at treatment week 12 in the prior study. Among prior partial responders/relapsers, 68% (62 of 91) of patients achieved an SVR with the triple-drug combination. The total proportion of patients in the study who achieved SVR was 59% (81 of 138), noted lead study author, Jean-Pierre Bronowicki, MD, PhD, of the University Henri Poincaré of Nancy, in Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France.

The degree of interferon responsiveness after lead-in with peginterferon and ribavirin correlated with prior response and could help predict SVR for prior null responders, the researchers concluded.

Indirect ‘Head-to-Head’ Comparison of Boceprevir, Telaprevir

Another study, presented at the EASL meeting by Cooper et al, attempted to compare boceprevir and telaprevir in a head-to-head clinical trial. The researchers used an indirect comparison meta-analysis and meta-regression of the current evidence to evaluate the relative efficacy of the two drugs in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin. Phase II and III randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of boceprevir or telaprevir in adult patients infected with HCV genotype 1 were considered for the analysis; four boceprevir trials and six telaprevir trials met the inclusion criteria.

The researchers found no significant differences between boceprevir and telaprevir in SVR among treatment-naive or -experienced patients (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.37; P=0.20 and RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.18-3.45; P=0.30, respectively). Additionally, there were no significant differences between boceprevir and telaprevir in rates of relapse or discontinuation of therapy among naive and experienced patients. Also, boceprevir and telaprevir were shown to be comparable in efficacy for both standard-dose and response-guided therapy. Telaprevir was associated with higher rates of rash (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.92; P=0.01) and pruritus (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.85; P=0.001) compared with boceprevir, which was associated with increased rates of neutropenia among treatment-naive response-guided patients (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.09-1.95; P=0.05).

Commenting on the method of data analysis used in this study, Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc, president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, Boston, pointed out that “indirect comparisons can be ‘valid’ if the technique is well done. Many coverage decisions require indirect comparisons. They are more open to question than direct comparisons, but often direct comparisons are not available or even feasible.”

However, Dr. Jensen said: “I hesitate to put too much reliance on a comparison between two agents that is not head-to-head and would be reluctant to say that these therapies are comparable based on this analysis alone. Nonetheless, it is my personal impression that these therapies are fairly comparable, so in that case, this study confirms my impression.”

The study authors noted that dosing schedule and adverse event (AE) profiles are the key factors that allow for differentiation between the drugs—a point echoed by pharmacist Janet Nguyen, PharmD, BCPS, vice president of network strategy, A-Med Health Care, Huntington Beach, Calif.

“Telaprevir has a much easier dosing schedule compared with boceprevir, with a three-month duration [compared with six to eight months for boceprevir] and one less blood draw,” she said. As for side effects, she noted that the study “called out the most significant [AEs]—rash for telaprevir and neutropenia for boceprevir.”

Helping patients manage AEs can have a positive effect on compliance, Dr. Nguyen stressed, and that in turn can be a cost-saver. “These are expensive drugs,” she noted.

Considering both studies, Dr. Jensen said, “These represent important findings, but may not be that surprising. They demonstrate what many have suspected: that telaprevir and boceprevir therapies provide generally comparable response rates, and that boceprevir is effective in prior interferon/ribavirin null responders.”

Updated Mar 3, 2015Reducing the cost of new hepatitis C drugsDaclatasvir, Harvoni (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir)/Sovaldi/Viekira Pak.
An index of articles pointing the reader to the current controversy over the high price of Sovaldi, Harvoni (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir) and AbbVie Viekira Pak.Class Action Lawsuit Challenges the Exorbitant Pricing of Gilead's Hepatitis-C Drug Sovaldi - The situation has Medicaid plans and insurers nationwide groping for the right balance. Worldwide patients are unable to afford treatment, while others wait in the wings on coverage.

U.S. FDA Approves Gileads Harvoni (Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir)
Harvoni is the first combination pill approved to treat chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. It is also the first approved regimen that does not require administration with interferon or ribavirin, two FDA-approved drugs also used to treat HCV infection.

Both drugs in Harvoni interfere with the enzymes needed by HCV to multiply. Sofosbuvir is a previously approved HCV drug marketed under the brand name Sovaldi. Harvoni also contains a new drug called ledipasvir.Continue reading...

Quick Links

Clinical Trials

To learn more about Hepatitis C virus clinical trials or to find out if a study is enrolling patients in your area, please click here.

Daclatasvir/VX-135..Vertex said it will license an experimental hepatitis C drug called VX-135 to Alios BioPharma..As a reminder (VX-135) is still on partial clinical hold by the FDA in the U.S. **Clinical Trials @ HCV Advocate-Vertex

How Soon Should I Get Tested After Exposure ?After the exposure (especially if the blood exposure involved another person known to have the hepatitis C virus), it is recommended that testing for the hepatitis C antibody be performed at 4 to 6 months after the exposure OR that testing for the hepatitis C virus itself (a test often called an HCV PCR or hepatitis C viral load test) be performed 4 to 6 weeks after the potential exposure. These tests are done to determine whether or not hepatitis C infection has occurred as a result of the exposure

FAIR USE NOTICE:

If this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner, it is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of the ethics dealing with medical practice, medical care, new drug research, drug trials, science and scientific research, human rights, social justice and, in addition, the law and politics which cover these areas.

It is believed that this use constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed to visitors of this “HCV New Drugs Blog” without profit to the blog or to those who by visiting this blog have expressed interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for a health care provider's consultation. Please consult your own appropriate health care provider about the applicability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your own symptoms or medical conditions. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice